The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Move: "Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)" → "Bill O'Reilly", May 2009: No consensus for move. (Discussion archive)
Move: "Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)" → "Bill O'Reilly", January 2011: Not moved. (Discussion archive)
Move: "Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)" → "Bill O'Reilly", September 2013: Not moved. (Discussion archive)
Move: "Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)" → "Bill O'Reilly", June 2016: Not moved. (Discussion archive)
Move: "Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)" → "Bill O'Reilly", July 2023: Not moved. (Discussion archive)
There is currently no consensus on whether there is a primary topic for "Bill O'Reilly". Those who support having the American political commentator as the primary topic cite recent traffic statistics. Those who oppose a move argue that these statistics are heavily skewed due to recentism; the cricket Hall of Famer has roughly the same long-term, historical importance or significance as that of the political commentator.
For the record I think this close was premature and also did a poor job characterizing the support for the move which had far stronger policy arguments. In this case WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was simply ignored by arguments of perception and speculation which were made primarily by fans of a particular sport. In cases like this when the outcome is determined simply by votes I wonder why we even have policies at all. Nemov (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't ignored. The proponents of the move, however, chose to cite only one part of it and ignore the other. Pageviews are not the only thing that counts for primary topic status. And plenty of those opposing were not cricket fans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BOTH have long term significance. 1 for 1 on PT2. However only 1 has page views. 1 for 0 on PT1. That means only one of them has both PT1 and PT2. It is the strongest argument, they are not equal. -- GreenC14:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't know whether the political commentator has long-term significance. With some exceptions, it's very difficult to judge that for living people who are still active in their careers. And political commentators like him are the sort of people who tend to fade from history after their careers end. Anyway, the RM has been closed. If you object to the close then take it to MRV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's nearly 80 years old now, his career is mostly done after he left Fox in 2017, I think it's safe to judge him by what he has done and not what he will do. In the context of the culture war period 1996-2017, there was probably no one with more weight and importance on the right-wing of US political commentary.The O'Reilly Factor had been the highest-rated cable news show for 16 years, and he was described by media analyst Howard Kurtz as "the biggest star in the 20-year history at Fox News" at the time of his ousting (and Fox News was the most watched news channel in the USA). His influence on US politics and culture is hard to overestimate. -- GreenC20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but Bill O’Reilly 2’s influence on cricket is hard to overestimate. That’s the issue— they’re both influential in their respective fields. Dronebogus (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@@ To me that's irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what people are actually looking for... someone could be the Babe Ruth of Rubik's Cubes and it wouldn't matter if the other person is getting searched for five times to one. Nemov (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was a perfectly reasonable close. It might have been wise to wait for an admin for a better trusted conclusion and explanation. Clear consensus was NOT demonstrated, neither by headcount nor by strength of argument, by my reading. Since I didn't contribute to the conversation, I'll opine that while both subjects are public figures in different arenas of popular culture, it's clear to me the cricketeer is regarded as a far more significant figure in their field (based on the cited significance assertion in the article as of the close) than the political commentator is in theirs (no reliable sources in the existing article make the argument that the pundit is one of the greatest figures in American political commentary). BusterD (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if you agree with the result of the close, this absolutely should have been closed by an admin, because it's a very contentious RM. Or by a very esteemed non-admin involved in RMs for a long time. A weak close by a passer-by just makes it more likely that a similarly futile RM will happen in the near future because this close isn't seen as very strong. (To be clear, I would urge this close to be withdrawn / overturned for either an admin or a respected closer to do this even if the result had supported my !vote.) SnowFire (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It takes someone with experience and confidence to close in a way that is maybe not popular but correct in terms of rules. In any case, if this comes up again, I hope the framer will force voters to address all the facts, summarize the core arguments and rules and request they be addressed, so it doesn't turn into yet another "idontlikeit" bias free for all that closes NC again. The framing of the RM is everything, it takes some time and effort. -- GreenC20:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW my comment wasn't to overturn the close. I would have formally gone through that process if I thought that was possible. It was just on observation on the poorly written close and relatively mob rule nature of the entire discussion. We do the average user a huge disservice when we make information more difficult to find. Anyway, I don't really care about either one of these people and the political commentator is rather annoying. Thanks to the weak nature of the close this will likely come up again since the majority of end users will be perplexed at the status quo. Nemov (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. It's clear that there was no consensus here. Speaking as the editor who proposed the move, even if I understand why some editors may feel that an uninvolved admin should have made the choice to either close it or keep it open, I personally don't believe we needed to wait for more responses to prove just how divisive this move was. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable close, but @CapnJackSp, unless a discussion is very clear to basically every reasonable editor in it, it's better to wait for a very experienced closer. I think many experienced non-admins would have waited. Valereee (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since 2020, states he works at Newsmax. This is not true. His current show, " Bill O'Reilly No Spin News" The Channel is called, " The First" not "Newsmax". 104.202.135.219 (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
